Latah County

Key demographics for Latah County, Idaho (U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2019–2023 5-year estimates unless noted)

Population size

• Total population: ~40.6k (ACS 2019–2023). 2020 Census count: 39,517.

Age

• Median age: ~29
• Age distribution: Under 18: ~16%; 18–24: ~27%; 25–44: ~27%; 45–64: ~16%; 65+: ~13%

Gender

• Male: ~52%
• Female: ~48%

Racial/ethnic composition

• White alone: ~88%
• Black or African American alone: ~1%
• American Indian and Alaska Native alone: ~1%
• Asian alone: ~5%
• Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone: ~0–1%
• Some other race alone: ~1%
• Two or more races: ~4–5%
• Hispanic or Latino (of any race): ~5–6%
• Non-Hispanic White: ~83%

Household data

• Total households: ~15.9k
• Average household size: ~2.36
• Family households: ~57%; Nonfamily households: ~43%
• Households with children under 18: ~25%
• Married-couple families: ~40%
• Housing tenure: Owner-occupied ~56%; Renter-occupied ~44%

Insights

• Young age profile with a large 18–24 share and low median age driven by the University of Idaho presence in Moscow.
• Housing tenure skews more renter-heavy than typical for Idaho, reflecting student-oriented housing.
• Population is predominantly non-Hispanic White, with small but notable Asian and Hispanic populations.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2019–2023 5-year (tables DP05, S0101, S1101, DP02, DP04) and 2020 Decennial Census. Figures rounded for readability.

Latah County, ID email usage snapshot

• Population and density: ~41,000 residents (2023 est.); ~38–39 people per sq. mile. Moscow houses ~60%+ of residents, concentrating connectivity.
• Digital access: About 92–94% of households have a broadband subscription; ~95–97% have a computer (ACS 2018–2022). Smartphone‑only internet households ~12–15%. Fiber/cable widely available in Moscow; fixed‑wireless/DSL more common in rural areas. Most residents have access to ≥25/3 Mbps; the urban core commonly reaches ≥100/20 Mbps.
• Estimated email users: 29,000–32,000 adult users. Method: apply national adult internet and email adoption rates (85–90% of adults) to Latah’s ~34,000 adults.
• Age distribution (population share; email penetration in parentheses): 18–24 ≈ 25–28% (≈98–100% use email); 25–44 ≈ 27–30% (≈98–100%); 45–64 ≈ 22–25% (≈95–98%); 65+ ≈ 14–16% (≈80–90%). University of Idaho skews usage younger and near‑universal.
• Gender split: ~51% male, 49% female; email usage is effectively even by gender.
• Trends/insights: High education levels and campus infrastructure drive near‑universal email among working‑age adults. Broadband adoption and multi‑device ownership support heavy daily email use, with smartphone‑only behavior rising in rural tracts. Urban‑rural divide persists in speed/technology, but overall connectivity supports robust email reliance for school, work, and services.

Mobile phone usage in Latah County, ID (with emphasis on local deviations from statewide patterns)

Context and population anchor

• Population baseline: approximately 41,000 residents (2023 estimate; 2020 Census was 39,517). Moscow is the population center and home to the University of Idaho, which drives a much younger age profile than Idaho overall.
• Age mix (rounded, typical of recent ACS vintages): 18–24 ≈ 29%, 25–44 ≈ 24%, 45–64 ≈ 22%, 65+ ≈ 12%, under 18 ≈ 13%. Median age is around 29, versus mid- to late-30s for Idaho as a whole.

User estimates (people and lines)

• Residents with any mobile phone: about 36,600 users (≈89–90% of residents), derived by applying national-age mobile ownership rates to Latah’s age structure.
• Smartphone users: about 34,300 residents (≈83–85% of total population), reflecting very high adoption among 18–44 and lower—but rising—adoption among 65+.
• Active consumer cellular lines (phones, wearables, tablets, hotspots): roughly 44,000–48,000, recognizing that many users carry more than one line/device.
• Wireless-only households (no landline): materially above the state average due to the student population and renters; a reasonable local estimate is around 80% of households, versus Idaho’s statewide rate in the mid-70s.

Demographic breakdown and usage patterns

• 18–24 (≈11.9k people): smartphone ownership ~97%; heavy app-centric use (social video, messaging, campus apps), high reliance on Wi‑Fi offload on campus and downtown Moscow.
• 25–44 (≈9.8k): smartphone ownership ~95%; high 5G device penetration; mixed personal/professional use with strong mobile payments and navigation usage.
• 45–64 (≈9.0k): smartphone ownership ~85–90%; solid LTE/5G adoption but more voice/SMS continuity than younger cohorts.
• 65+ (≈4.9k): smartphone ownership ~70–80% and rising; larger share of LTE-only devices remains than in younger cohorts, though upgrades are accelerating.
• Teens 13–17 (≈2.0k): smartphone ownership ~95%; high video and messaging usage, primarily on family plans.

How Latah County differs from Idaho statewide

• Higher overall smartphone penetration: The unusually large 18–24 cohort elevates smartphone penetration several points above the Idaho average and shifts usage toward data-heavy, app-based communication.
• More Wi‑Fi offload and venue-driven peaks: Campus Wi‑Fi (eduroam and university networks) offloads substantial traffic on weekdays, while events (Kibbie Dome, campus activities) produce short, sharp cellular demand spikes that are less typical in non-university counties.
• Device and plan mix: Family and student plans, bring‑your‑own‑device, and multi-line accounts are more prevalent; prepaid-only reliance is comparatively lower than in rural, older counties.
• Cross-border network effects: Regular movement between Moscow (ID) and Pullman (WA) produces a bi-state micro-market with denser coverage and more capacity investment than most Idaho counties of similar size.
• Wireless-only households and mobile-first: A higher share of renters and students translates to more households relying exclusively on mobile for voice and much of their broadband, exceeding the Idaho average.

Digital infrastructure and coverage notes

• Carriers present: Verizon, AT&T, and T‑Mobile serve the county; Inland Cellular provides regional coverage, especially in rural stretches.
• 5G footprint: 5G is widely available in Moscow and along the US‑95 corridor near town limits, with low-band 5G extending primary travel routes. Mid-band 5G (for higher capacity) is concentrated in and around Moscow; many rural blocks remain LTE-only.
• LTE baseline: Most populated areas (Moscow, Genesee, Potlatch, Troy, Deary, Kendrick/Juliaetta) have solid LTE; terrain-driven gaps persist in canyons and on the lee side of ridgelines, especially toward the Potlatch River and forested uplands.
• Backhaul and fiber: Moscow has strong fiber backhaul (e.g., Ziply Fiber and local providers such as First Step Internet), supporting higher site capacity and 5G deployments. Rural sites rely on a mix of fiber where available and microwave links.
• Fixed wireless access (FWA): 5G/LTE home internet offers are available in Moscow and some fringe areas; take-up is notably higher around the university than in many rural Idaho counties due to renters and short-term residents.

Practical implications for service and planning

• Capacity prioritization: The county benefits from urban-style capacity in Moscow (reflecting student density), with rural performance still constrained by terrain and longer inter-site distances.
• Upgrade cadence: Faster 5G device and plan adoption in town pulls forward carrier upgrades versus the statewide rural average, improving median speeds where most residents live.
• Digital divide: The youth- and education-driven profile narrows the smartphone adoption gap observed elsewhere in Idaho, but geography still creates rural pockets where dependable coverage remains an issue.

Key figures (rounded)

• Population: ~41,000
• Any mobile phone users: ~36,600
• Smartphone users: ~34,300
• Active consumer cellular lines: ~44,000–48,000
• Wireless-only households: ~80% locally (higher than Idaho’s mid‑70s)

Below is an age‑adjusted snapshot of social media use in Latah County, Idaho, derived from the county’s youthful population mix (University of Idaho) and current U.S. platform adoption patterns (Pew Research Center 2023–2024) applied to local demographics (ACS). Figures are modeled local estimates; rounded to whole percentages.

User stats

• Adult population baseline (18+): ≈34,000
• Adults using at least one social platform: ≈86% (≈29,000–30,000 people)
• Daily social media users: ≈70% of adult users (≈20,000–21,000 people)

Most‑used platforms (share of adults who use the platform)

• YouTube: 88%
• Facebook: 68%
• Instagram: 58%
• Snapchat: 43%
• TikTok: 42%
• Pinterest: 33%
• LinkedIn: 30%
• Reddit: 26%
• X/Twitter: 25%
• Nextdoor: 16%

Age groups (share of Latah’s adult social media audience)

• 18–29: ~40% (drives above‑average use of Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, Reddit, YouTube)
• 30–49: ~30% (heavy on YouTube, Facebook, Instagram; growing TikTok)
• 50–64: ~20% (Facebook, YouTube dominate; Instagram moderate)
• 65+: ~10% (primarily Facebook and YouTube; limited TikTok/Snapchat)

Gender breakdown (overall tendencies among local users)

• Overall user base: slightly female‑skewed (~51–53% women, 47–49% men)
• Platforms skewing female: Facebook, Instagram (modest), Pinterest (strongly)
• Platforms skewing male: YouTube (modest), Reddit (strong), X/Twitter (modest)
• Snapchat and TikTok: near‑balanced or slight female tilt among younger adults

Behavioral trends to know

• Student‑driven immediacy: 18–24s lean on Snapchat for coordination and DMs, Instagram Stories/Reels for campus life, and TikTok for trends and local “what’s happening” discovery.
• Community and information hub: Facebook Groups and Pages are the default for city/county updates, schools, events (e.g., markets, sports), and Marketplace; older cohorts engage here daily.
• Video‑first discovery: YouTube is the county’s broadest‑reach platform for how‑tos, local sports/highlights, and longer‑form information; short‑form video (Reels/TikTok) drives rapid reach among younger adults.
• Local discourse and niche interests: Reddit over‑indexes relative to national averages in college towns; expect active local/campus subcommunities for news, housing, and tech.
• Commerce and services: Facebook Marketplace and local buy/sell groups are the primary channels for rentals, furniture, and student turnover; Instagram is effective for local eateries and events via stories and Reels.
• Timing: Engagement spikes evenings and weekends; student activity peaks late afternoon through late night during the academic year; community updates perform best early morning and early evening.
• Messaging as glue: Much content discovery begins publicly (Instagram/TikTok/Reddit) but organizes privately (Snapchat/Instagram DMs), so call‑to‑action clarity and shareable formats matter.

Notes on sources and method

• Population and age structure: ACS; youthful skew due to University of Idaho.
• Platform adoption: Pew Research Center 2023–2024 national rates, adjusted for Latah’s age mix to produce local estimates. Percentages reflect adult “use” (any use), not necessarily monthly actives.